On 06/29/2009 04:41 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I don't really like the xul-ext- prefix for the packages name, but I
> must say I'm not very satisfied with mozilla- either. At least, that's
> what is currently used in the archive.
I think all the choices proposed so far have been fairly uninspiring but
xul-ext- has been the least bad package name prefix. I'd be happy to
hear other suggestions. Would you prefer to have mozilla- be the
standard prefix instead of xul-ext- ?
> Speaking of the archive, I see no package using
> /usr/share/xul-extensions already, but some do use
> /usr/share/mozilla-extensions (but they are all mine) and have done for
> a very long time.
Do you feel that a filesystem switch to standardize on
/usr/share/xul-extensions would be harmful? would you prefer that we
standardize on /usr/share/mozilla-extensions instead?
> Note that upstream supports
> /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{application-uuid}/ directories, and there
> may be /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/common supported at some time in
> the future, out of the box.
Hrm, not sure what this means exactly. i assume that {application-uuid}
refers to the application itself, and not the uuid of the extension.
What would /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/common refer to? Is it an
extension that's expected to work with every single XUL-based app? Do
these defaults hold for non-mozilla xulapps (like conkeror or songbird)?
--dkg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 890 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-mozillateam/attachments/20090629/83e53010/attachment.pgp